MENU

Sections

More

May 18, 2021

The Talbot Spy

The nonprofit e-newspaper for the Talbot County Community

Point of View Howard Top Story

Out and About (Sort of): Lawsuit Avoidable with Debate by Howard Freedlander

by 1 Comment

No better sign of the Talbot County Council’s ineptitude strikes a discordant chord more than the lawsuit filed two weeks ago by the NAACP and the ACLU to remove the Talbot Boys Monument from the public space in front of the county courthouse.

The lawsuit is a direct result of lack of responsiveness and responsibility on the part of the county council. It voted more than a year-and-a-half ago to retain the offensive Confederate monuments. It has done nothing to assuage public opinion, beyond pleasing those determined to keep the monument as is, a statement of white supremacy in the minds of those advocating its removal.

That the monument is the only one representing the Confederacy on public space in Maryland seemingly is a badge of honor to Councilpersons Chuck Callahan, Dan Divilio and Laura Price. Embarrassment is not a factor. Standing your ground amid a public uproar seems preferable to removal of a symbol of Confederate opposition to a united country and an end to slavery. 

Lawsuits typically happen when civil discourse ceases. Compromise is no longer achievable. A courtroom or judge’s office becomes the only venue for a legal settlement. A failure to resolve differences produces a litigious outcome, expensive in time, cost and emotion.

I again listened, painfully so, to council proceedings on October 27, 2020 when the council voted 3-2 against a request by Richard Potter, president of the local NAACP, and other community leaders, to meet with the county’s five elected leaders. Both Corey Pack, then the council president, and Councilperson Pete Lesher voted in favor of granting the request. Had I not already known the result of the frequently acrimonious discussion, I would have recoiled from the cowardly stance expressed by Callahan, Divilio and Price.

The three councilpersons adamantly argued against a public hearing for fear of emotional and possibly inflammatory comments voiced by proponents of moving the Talbot Boys Monument. Each one questioned the efficacy of a public hearing, preferring to meet individually with those favoring removal of the monument. Callahan advocated for the question to be submitted to the voters in 2022, ignoring his previous comments during his political service asserting that he and others are elected to take stands on difficult issues, not hide behind a ballot question, to do their jobs.

I found the position taken by the threesome oddly ironic. A public hearing that might become rancorous should be avoided in favor of private conversations, so their reasoning seemed to illustrate. Few people like contention. That I understand. 

What puzzles me was a 3-2 decision to pursue non-public conversations, forsaking the role of officials elected to conduct business in front of their constituents.

Pack and Lesher promoted a public hearing to no avail. The latter opined that acceding to the request for a meeting would “restore a spirit of civility and mutual respect.” Pack apologized for his 2015 vote opposing removal of the highly controversial Confederate monument, saying he was “ashamed” of his role. He agreed with Lesher about the potentially harmful effect on tourism and the hospitality business. The two councilpersons bemoaned a statue that exudes an aura of a non-welcoming county that eschews equity and justice.

It is no wonder that the Talbot County Council is the subject of an avoidable lawsuit. A majority of the five-person council voted against public dialogue. It voted against trying to reach common ground with passionate civic leaders intent on moving the Talbot Boys Monument.

It was a mistake.

By refusing to meet with those favoring removal of a hostile symbol entrenched on public ground, Callahan, Divilio and Price exhibited blatant disrespect for the views expressed by residents who disagreed with them. 

The threesome closed the door to public dialogue. The decision was regrettable.

As I listened, I sensed an unproductive defensiveness on the part of the three deniers of a legitimate request. They seemed to resent being placed in a position to decide whether to exercise their responsibilities to meet in what might have been a confrontational meeting.

If you read the comments of congressional members nationwide who hold town meetings, you realize that these events can be raucous and discordant. You also learn that the congressional representatives understand that disagreement expressed publicly comes with democratic government.

The lawsuit will now consume time and money. It will prove embarrassing to Talbot County, placing its flawed thinking in the national spotlight. It will diminish its reputation as a desirable place to live, work and play.

Communication can be fraught and fractious. It also can be helpful in calming turmoil and dissension.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

 

Celebrations by Jamie Kirkpatrick

by Leave a Comment

I’ve come to the conclusion that celebrations are good. Now this may seem like a self-evident proposition, but I think it’s more complicated than that. The problem, as I see it, is that our celebratory radar needs to be recalculated. It’s easy enough to recognize the big events that need celebrating, but we might lead happier lives if we celebrated smaller achievements, like finding something that was lost or losing a couple of pounds. Well, maybe not the latter as that second slice of celebratory cake might well be counter-productive to the achievement itself.

I began thinking about this a few nights ago when we did, in fact, celebrate a major birthday. The celebrated one is a much loved friend who tends to hide her light under her own bushel basket, which may well be one of the many reasons she is so universally loved and admired. Whatever those reasons, eleven of us gathered to mark her birthday on a soft and pleasant spring evening. How the event came to be held in our backyard is a story in and of itself, based on truths involving a recent hip surgery and a certain home improvement project, but all that’s beside the point. What is note-worthy is that this party was a collaborative event, one that took the proverbial village in that everyone pitched in to provide all the necessary ingredients: plenty of good food and drink, as well as all the essential infrastructure of a garden party: tables and chairs, candles and flowers. OK; so there were no strolling violinists, but the happy buzz of conversations more than made up for any lack of strings. 

I have no doubt that the festive atmosphere was enhanced by the fact that we—good friends all—were together again after too many months of living separately. We were outdoors and vaccinated, so there was nary a mask in sight, perhaps proof that the world is finally on the mend. We punctuated that point when the birthday cakes (note the plural) were presented to the guest of honor to the sound of bagpipes which had not been played lo these many pandemic months. Stirring—at least I thought so, but the neighbors might have had a different opinion. By the end of the evening, everyone was in a good mood, not rowdy, just happy to have shared in the marking of a friend’s milestone.

But back to where I began: celebrations are good; we just need to find more ways to incorporate them into our daily lives. Birthdays are, at best, annual events, like Thanksgiving or Christmas or the Fourth of July. Graduations are certainly worthy of celebration, but they only come at the end of a four-year slough. In pre-Covid times, our town regularly celebrated First Fridays on a monthly basis—better, in my opinion, but not good enough. We just need to take smaller steps.

I propose some manner of daily celebration. It need not require great fanfare or party favors or even alcohol. Maybe it’s just a happy memory, or a quiet moment of gratitude shared with a loved one. We take so much for granted that sometimes we fail to recognize all the good that resides within and around us, all the little accomplishments of our daily lives. If we can figure out how to celebrate all the small steps, then maybe, just maybe, one day we’ll figure out how to celebrate the long journey of life.

I’ll be right back.

Jamie Kirkpatrick is a writer and photographer who lives in Chestertown. His work has appeared in the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Washington College Alumni Magazine, and American Cowboy Magazine.

Two collections of his essays (“Musing Right Along” and “I’ll Be Right Back”) are available on Amazon. Jamie’s website is www.musingjamie.com.

 

Focus On Talbot: A Clarification on the Trappe Project Discharge Permit:

by 1 Comment

For those following the petition to Remand Resolution 281 discussed in the Spy last week, I want to make an important clarification so there is no misunderstanding.  

A reader friend called me and, as we spoke, it became apparent that she thought I’d said the Circuit Court itself had confirmed that the developer had watered down (no pun intended) the sewage system plans for Trappe East between the draft and final permits, and confirmed it was a “bait and switch.”  (Her words.)  A good reason to be upset—were that exactly so.

What our Circuit Court Judge did, on the petition from ShoreRivers, was to remand (i.e., send back) the final wastewater discharge permit to MDE for another round of comments, responses, a new public hearing, and then a revised final permit.  Let’s call that a “next review.”  (Theoretically it could come out unchanged.)  The Judge did that without comment; he did not say why.  He said nothing about a shell game, and he did not say ShoreRivers’ complaints of significant adverse changes to the plans were correct.

Interestingly—and I know the developer will make a big deal of this—the developer, Mr. Rocks, did not fight ShoreRivers’ demand.  They filed papers agreeing that they were ok with a remand.  And MDE, who is “merely” a regulator with no dog in the fight, said that if the two parties don’t care, then it was ok with them….and thus the remand ordered for a “next review.”

What are we to make of all this?  

First, I know a few judges, and I am as sure as god made green apples that, with the parties agreeing, Judge Kehoe was delighted to sign the remand and get that paper off of his overloaded desk.  (Not to be too presumptuous.)  I’m sure he was relieved not to be required to evaluate ShoreRiver’s claims about nitrogen and fecal coliform.

Second, I am pretty sure the developer’s attorney, always effective on Mr. Rocks’ behalf, will tell us that the very fact that they did not object to a remand is evidence of their snow-white innocence, that they agreed to a remand because they are sure they will show, on re-examination, that the changes were innocent and have no adverse impact.  Maybe.  But we can only know after that “next review.”

Third, consider what else Rocks’ decision not to fight the remand request could mean.  How about this?   That now flagged, (e.g., reducing the size of holding lagoons) they recognized a losing hand, and rather than spending the time and money to fight ShoreRivers, just move ahead.  (As to that loosing hand:  look at the petition detailing the RiverKeeper’s findings:  a smaller spray field; changed discharge formula; reduced freeboard on the sludge ponds by three feet.)  Again, we can not know till after “the next review.”  So, a developer might well say, spend no money, agree to the “next review,” move on.

But, says you, then the project cannot start!  That makes no sense.

Wrong.  

Bear with me now.  Resolution 281, which if not rescinded per our petition, allows Mr. Rocks to proceed with “Phase 1A” of Lakeside irrespective of the status of the new sewerage treatment plant we’re all arguing about.  An inadequately considered aspect of the Resolution is that it permits the first 120 houses to start immediately, whatever’s going on with the discharge permit.  And for the developer, starting is everything.  Cut the trees, push the dirt.

And where does the sewage from those first 120 homes go?  Why, into the existing inadequate Trappe wastewater plant, a plant that has had failures in the past, and from there into LaTrappe Creek to the Choptank.  

At the June 10, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, opposition to the new Trappe sewage plant waned a good deal when the developer’s attorney made a surprise announcement that Rocks’ sewage plant would meet the Enhanced Nutrient Removal (“ENR”) standard requiring discharge below 3 mg/l of nitrogen and .3 mg/l of phosphorus (compared to 8 mg/l and 3 mg/l “BNR standards” otherwise applicable).  The developer’s attorney did not tell the Commissioners about other, adverse, changes still to come.  Still, the Planning Commission (on whom the County Council relied heavily) only recommended in favor by a 3-2 margin, when decisions are generally unanimous. 

Resolution 281 permits 120 houses to go up right now, run through an unreliable old plant whose permit requires it to meet only out-of-date BNR standards.  And having watched the process, I’m confident Mr. Rocks got a green light last year only by presenting misleading information and key omissions at certain points in the review process.  There is a reason, when being sworn in, one is asked not only “to tell the truth,” but also “the whole truth!”  

If Resolution 281 is not rescinded PDQ, then however long we’re all arguing and working through the “next review,” Mr. Rocks will be shoveling dirt and moving ahead with those first 120 houses—and hooking them up to an antiquated, often failing system whose permit is even way out of line with current standards.  And that effluent goes into the Chop.

Apologies if I seem worked up about this, but our County Council is supposed to protect the citizens from this sort of thing, not actively facilitate it.  If you wish to voice support for this Petition effort to rescind Resolution 281, send an email to that effect to smoran@talbgov.org.

Dan Watson is the former chair of Bipartisan Coalition For New Council Leadership and has lived in Talbot County for the last twenty-five years. 

Letter to Editor: Voices of Justice Support Moving the Talbot Boys

by Leave a Comment

For more than 100 years, the Talbot Boys Confederate Monument has been standing tall on courthouse property.  

Supporters of the Move the Monument Coalition were asked: “Why do you want the Talbot Boys Confederate Monument moved from the courthouse?”  By following this link , right below the graph, you can hear their very personal, heartfelt responses as part of the Voices of Justice Project.

Missed the opportunity to share your reasons for why the monument should be moved?  

Your voice can be heard by joining us Saturday, June 19th for a March and Rally to move the Confederate monument off courthouse property. 

The march will begin at 11 a.m. near Easton Marketplace shopping center, 219 Marlboro Ave., Easton, and end with a rally at noon on the courthouse lawn. Speakers will include clergy, elected officials and civil rights advocates.

Coalition members have been working closely with the Sheriff and County Health Department to be sure all safety protocol is followed. 

Help make the courthouse fully become our county symbol of democracy and our shared home for the rule of law, fair and equal justice. 

Move the Monument Coalition
Talbot County 

For more information, contact: movethemonumentTC@gmail.com Also, visit our Facebook page at Move the Confederate Talbot Boys Monument, or go to our website.

 

The Newest Ambassador by Al Sikes

by Leave a Comment

“His blood is on the Eastern Shore.” Indeed.

The comments were heartfelt and at times poetic. The occasion, honoring Jeff Horstman, the newest Chesapeake Bay Ambassador. Jeff recently retired as executive head of ShoreRivers. I suspect his retirement will not go well. He is not by nature, retiring. 

Jeff Horstman

Ann Swanson, Executive Director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, summed up Jeff’s devotion to our rivers, bays and land. Her coda spoke of blood and the passions it stirs—and stirs in Jeff.

I had the good fortune of serving with Jeff on the Boards, yes plural. At the beginning we served on the board of Midshore Riverkeepers Conservancy, which was founded by Tim Junkin in 2009. ShoreRivers, the organization Jeff led until recently, includes the now merged Chester River Association which was founded in 1986 and the Sassafras River Association, founded in 2004.  

Absent Jeff’s leadership this merger would not have happened. Today ShoreRivers is the steward of the Choptank, Miles, Wye, Chester and Sassafras rivers.

Yes, I know organizational moves can be mind-numbing in the recounting. But, and this is the ultimate accomplishment: Jeff brought together a disparate combination of leaders who were devoutly focused on their watersheds and plans into a crucial regional mission which enjoys far-reaching synergy.

There were, of course, many principals in what was a rapidly moving and often inspiring narrative. But, there was one whose passion, focus, and measured efforts led to ShoreRivers.

Congratulations Ambassador Jeff Horstman.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al recently published Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. 

Time for Some Humor…and I Know Just the Source by Angela Rieck

by Leave a Comment

Ahh, Spring, and this is a special Spring because we missed the last one. And during Spring our hearts turn to love. For those of us who are single, it often means getting onto a dating website. Periodically I join a paid dating site…then I quit. I have met some nice people, but nothing that makes me want to change my life.

When a woman of my age joins these websites, we can be assured that most of our potential suitors will be “catfishers.” While many of them are clever and keep me in the conversation until I catch on. This latest one is so bad, that I had to share it. (Also, I need material for a column.)

There are many ways to spot a “catfisher” and often they are online all the time and they talk about how beautiful you are. They rarely answer a question. The best way to get rid of one is to ask for a Zoom meeting.

So, for all of you voyeurs out there, here is a transcript from my most recent “suitor.”

Suitor’s “Profile”: He is a widower, about 10 years my junior, average looking, has a PhD, and lives in Annapolis.

My “Suitor”: Hello There, how are you today? what an elegance of beauty. you wear a gorgeous smile . I’m Peter, your profile piqued my interest too and am keen on getting acquainted with you , i believe we can share more interest together to see how much we have in common , soon stay blessed and beautiful. Peter.

What I Think: Oh Good Lord, knowing English would be a good start.

What I Say: It is good to hear from you, you sound very interesting. What does brutally honest and passionate mean?

(That is what something that he said on his website.)

My “Suitor”: so happy to get a response from you. It means totally submissive to honesty and passionate. what do you believe it takes to build a wonderful relationship? .for me I believe that the combination of communication, trust and mutual respect is the key in any successful relationship, and you have to find someone who is on same journey with you, and is ready to compromise or disagree to agree lol , although nothing can survive without attraction and chemistry.

What I Think: This nonsense is hard to read, but I am desperate for material.

What I Say: That is so nice, but I think that you might want a younger woman.

My “Suitor” I really do appreciate your time in responding to my text, I want you to know some few points about me, I am an Engineer, I specialized on building and construction, am an independent man who loves his job and plans well for the future and I’m in search for a lovely woman who will forever remain my life partner as well as growing old together. I don’t mind about the age. I feel okay with you.

What I Think: Will he ever answer a question? But I want to string this on a little longer (at least it keeps him from “catfishing” others.)

What I Say: Annapolis is such a beautiful town, are you a sailor?

My “Suitor” I’m not a sailor, I believe in respect. So if you don’t have self respect how can you respect others, am calm reserved and I have a big heart ,always caring of others, i love to be around nature , i have a great sense of humor, am very hardworking, . outgoing, get along with just about everyone, i have a personal relationship with God and i put him first in all i do. I love to try everything at least once! I believe you sometimes have to take chances in life. My favorite time of the the year is summer, beaches, golfing vacations. am extremely passionate and very romantic. am the kind of guy that always does his best to put a smile on the face of his woman cause i will always treat her like a queen she is with so much love and respect. I truly want to find a best friend. Someone to share all the little things that matter the most . I’m far from perfect and can’t claim to be. I believe in being nice and expect the same. I have been told that I have a great personality. I love to make people laugh. I love to cook . When I say cook I’m talking about meals that you would pay outrageous prices for .

What I Think: This guy isn’t even trying; I should be insulted that he has put so little effort into this. I think that he is stringing random words together. But I am going to try one more time to see what he is up to. Then I will report him.

What I Say: That sounds lovely. So what are our next steps? I am a little old fashioned and like the man to take charge.

What I Think: Of course, anyone who knows me knows that this is NOT TRUE.

My “Suitor” I’m good looking and i can represent. I Enjoy life to the fullest! Outgoing people, love to be outdoors, bowling, dominoes, cards, bque’s, the beach, travel, festivals, movies, as well as a quiet evening at home. Ideal Woman is outgoing, carefree, great sense of humor, hard working, loves his friends and family, and have common interest. I can be a bit of a smart azz at times but its all in good fun. Look at life as the glass half full. Positive outlook on life is very important to me. Life is a beautiful thing! Should be treated as such. Have been very blessed with a beautiful 2 kids. I have some of the best friends a man can have. Took some time out for myself. Now I’m ready for that special someone to share my life with. Could you be the one, such a cheesy line huh LOL!!

What I Think: I give up…time to report him.

Thus ends my word salad suitor.

Gotta love the Internet, you can always find good material.

Angela Rieck, a Caroline County native, received her PhD in Mathematical Psychology from the University of Maryland and worked as a scientist at Bell Labs, and other high-tech companies in New Jersey before retiring as a corporate executive. Angela and her dogs divide their time between St Michaels and Key West Florida. Her daughter lives and works in New York City.

A Beginning, Not an Ending by Craig Fuller

by 4 Comments

Today’s media reports that Congresswoman Liz Cheney was ousted from her leadership post by fellow House Republicans. I suspect this is anything but career-ending. In truth, her colleagues probably provided a proverbial booster rocket to her remarkable career.

Many also reported that this was about two different views of how the Republican Party should engage former president Trump. It is really about two very different views of one’s role as a leader in Congress stemming from two very different paths.

Congressman Kevin McCarthy from Bakersfield, California and Congresswoman Liz Cheney from Casper, Wyoming are about the same age. One has a well-developed world view while the other’s life experience has been centered on the U.S. Capital. One has few personal options, although he is clearly seeking to rise to the Speaker’s chair one day. The other is suddenly free to pursue many different options, certainly including but not limited to even higher office.

Consider these paths.

Kevin McCarthy was born in 1965 in Bakersfield, California. Twenty-two years later, he found himself on the staff of then Congressman Bill Thomas, running the Congressman’s district office in Bakersfield. He ran for office first in 2000, winning a seat as a trustee of the Kern County College District. From there, it was onto an immediate campaign, winning a seat in the California Assembly, representing the citizens of Bakersfield in 2002. That soon lead to a successful campaign sending McCarthy to House of Representatives in 2006.

Liz Cheney, born in 1966, began life in Madison, Wisconsin. She attended grade school in Casper, Wyoming while her father campaigned for Congress. She attended high school in McLean, Virginia. She went to Colorado College graduating in 1988 having completed a thesis on the “Evolution of Presidential War Powers.” She was involved with the US Agency for International Development from 1989-93. Then, in 1996 graduated from Chicago Law School; after which, she entered the White & Case law firm to practice international law.  She went on to become a Special Assistant to Deputy Secretary of State for Assistance to the Former Soviet Union. During her career, she served as a USAID officer in embassies located in Budapest and Warsaw. In 2002, she was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. She entered a US Senate race in Wyoming in 2014 but withdrew. Then, came back to win a seat in the House of Representatives in 2016 with 60% of the general election vote. In 2020, she won her primary contest for her House seat with 73% of the vote and 69% of the general election vote.

One of my long-held concerns about congressional staffers seeking the office of a retiring Member of Congress for whom they served is that they lack much of a world view. While knowing several to be good people, still their life experience revolves around the political maneuvering in the nation’s Capital and so judgements on policy and principal tend to be more self-directed.

Today, as the Kevin McCarthy has managed to push Liz Cheney from the leadership position she held, he must believe he has addressed a problem about which he had grown weary. Namely, Liz Cheney refused to let the truth about the recent election be denied. And, if you listen to her short but thoughtful address on the floor of the House, you hear how her world view, shaped by personal involvement in countries around the world seeking freedom contributed to her thinking. To view her remarks, click this link.  For Kevin McCarthy, forcing her out of this #3 leadership position represents a huge penalty, because his life experience is a long climb up a political ladder since being a young district staffer for a Congressman in Bakersfield. 

The reality is quite different. Liz Cheney is now, in fact, free to do and say pretty much what she wishes to do and say. Her career which has been known to many in Washington, is now something that has her on a national stage. If her past engagement suggests anything, it is that she will rise from this experience to even greater leadership positions. Maybe this means a greater role in government. Maybe she will find a role in a nonprofit organization with an important global mission. Maybe she will discover opportunities in the legal field or business. Certainly, what she will not do is waiver from her principled views and the courage behind her effective expression of those views.

Craig Fuller served four years in the White House as assistant to President Reagan for Cabinet Affairs, followed by four years as chief of staff to Vice President George H.W. Bush. Having been engaged in five presidential campaigns and run public affairs firms and associations in Washington, D.C., he now resides on the Eastern Shore.

TIS Talk: The Case for Doing Away with the Phrase “The Homeless”

by Leave a Comment

“The Homeless”… We hear that phrase all the time.  It’s even part of the names of some organizations created to fight homelessness. But at Talbot Interfaith Shelter (TIS), there is something about those words just makes us cringe. We humbly suggest doing away with that phrase and replacing it with the term “Homeless People.” Here’s why:

We as a society attach such a negative stigma to homelessness. There is an assumption that the majority of homeless people are mentally ill or drug addicts. Our mindset is often that, if someone is homeless, it is the result of something they have done – bad choices, laziness, etc. – and that they deserve whatever has happened to them.  When we refer to them as “The Homeless,” we don’t have to think of them as people.  We remove their humanity, and it makes it easier to ignore or dismiss them. It is simpler to see them that way – then we don’t have to think of homelessness as something that we need to help fix, and we certainly don’t have to think of it as something that can happen to us. 

In reality, addicts and those with severe mental illness make up a relatively small percentage of the homeless population. It is much more likely that people will become homeless because:

  • They have lost their job.
  • They cannot afford housing.
  • They are escaping domestic violence.
  • They have aged out of the foster care system.
  • They have been kicked out of their homes because of their sexual orientation, or because they have become pregnant and/or are in a mixed-race relationship. 
  • They have a chronic illness or injury.
  • They served in the armed forces and did not get the support they needed when they returned home.
  • They have experienced a death in the family or a breakdown of the family unit.

When we look at homelessness in this way, it’s much more difficult to dismiss it as something that has nothing to do with us, or that can’t happen to us.  We can easily put ourselves in the shoes of those who are experiencing homelessness.

At Talbot Interfaith Shelter, we like to say that “homeless” is an adjective, NOT a noun.  It describes someone’s situation, but it does not define who or what they are.  Homeless people are just that – PEOPLE – and homelessness is simply the lack of a roof over one’s head.  It is not something that automatically identifies someone in any specific way. 

If we are going to fight homelessness in our society, we must first change the perception of what it looks like.  By eliminating the phrase “The Homeless” and instead saying “Homeless People,” we can start to change the conversation. We can begin to humanize homelessness.  We can work to create solutions that don’t include criminalization and lack of compassion, but rather address the root causes and acknowledge the individual challenges of those who are struggling with homelessness.

And then maybe, just maybe, fewer people will be defined by the fact that they are homeless, and more will be able to become “Formerly Homeless People,” “Working People,” “Financially Stable People,”  and “Successful People.” But first, we have to acknowledge that they are people. 

Jayme Dingler is the Marketing and Development Director at Talbot Interfaith Shelter.

To learn more about how TIS helps “Homeless People” in our community by addressing their individual challenges, call Julie Lowe at 410-310-2316 or visit talbotinterfaithshelter.org. 

 

Modern Day Talbot Boys (and Girls): Please Read This by J.E. Dean

by 20 Comments

Some of my best friends on the Eastern Shore, especially those in Talbot County, are tired of the debate over whether the statue of the Talbot Boys should be removed from its honored home in front of the county’s courthouse.  We need to preserve history and avoid the ‘cancel culture,’ I am told.  I am also told that the statue is ‘beautiful’ and is “balanced out” by the nearby statue of Frederick Douglass.

I call these friends and neighbors “Modern Talbot Boys and Girls.”  That is not meant to be offensive, but rather to suggest that, like the “Talbot Boys” honored by the monument, those opposed to removing it are, in my opinion, misguided. They are on the wrong side of justice and, if you will, history.

I am not calling anyone against moving the statue a “racist.”  While some racism still exists in Talbot County, most people I have discussed the issue with do not seem to appreciate how offensive and hurtful it is to people of color. That lack of understanding is not necessarily racism. It is, however, something that should be addressed. The recently filed lawsuit, especially the fact-filled complaint, helps address this problem.  It not only makes a persuasive case for removing the statue but is educational as well. 

In suggesting that everyone better inform themselves about the history of the statue and why its continued presence in front of the courthouse is a problem, I am not asking anyone to do anything other than to give the facts surrounding this divisive issue a closer look. 

I have read that history and am convinced the statue needs to be moved.  I may be naïve, but I think most of us will agree that the statue should be removed after learning more about it. Those of us who oppose moving the statue should read the lawsuit just filed in support of removing it. It may not convince you to change your mind, but it will help you understand why so many consider the statue problematic. 

 I have chosen only a few excerpts from the complaint.  You will find reading the entire 54-page document educational. It describes how the monument came to be where it is today, the history of racism in Talbot County, and explains why the statue injures people today.

Here are the excerpts:

“The so-called ‘Talbot Boys’ statue—an homage to traitors to the United States and to the State of Maryland, who fought to sustain the enslavement and subjugation of Black people and to tear apart the Union—cannot remain on government property consistent with the core promise of the Fourteenth Amendment to all Americans:  equality under the law.”

“Erected 50 years after the Civil War had ended and during the Jim Crow era, the statue was funded primarily by a prominent white lawyer who had repeatedly made disparaging public remarks about Black Americans and embraced ideals of slavery. . . Against this backdrop, it is clear that the Talbot Boys statue, like numerous other Confederate  monuments once standing across the country, was created to pay homage to a slaveowning society that lost the Civil War, and was principally intended to serve as an overt expression of white dominance over Black people. “

“Before the Civil War, Talbot County had the tenth largest slave population in the state—nearly 4,000 people were enslaved in the county.  Easton’s port had become a hub for the domestic slave trade, and the town’s slave market was located on the very grounds where the courthouse and the Talbot Boys statue now stand.”

“The statue’s origin traces directly back to the violence of Jim Crow, which followed post -Civil War Reconstruction.  It was erected at a time when Confederate statues were used as a means of racial intimidation.“

“Black people and others have to pass the statue to get a marriage license, serve on a jury, attend and petition their county officials at Council meetings, and go to court. “ 

“The statue’s depiction of Confederate imagery, including a Rebel soldier with a ‘C.S.A’ belt buckle, a Confederate battle flag, and the inscription “CSA,” intentionally and overtly invokes the spirit of that racially discriminatory set of values, no less offensive and racially discriminatory than if Talbot County paid live humans to shout racial epithets or installed a public address system through which racial epithets were aired 24 hours a day.”

“Not only is the Talbot Boys statue a symbol of past and present discrimination against Black people, but it is an active instrument of it. Every judge, juror, and attorney who enters the Talbot County courthouse must pass by this symbol of government support for white supremacy.  Additionally, every Black person who wishes to enter the courthouse to exercise other fundamental rights, such as the right to marriage by obtaining a marriage license, must pass by it, knowing its demeaning history and knowing that it attracts those who hold racist and white supremacist views.”

If the lawsuit is successful, Talbot County would be required to remove the statue from its current location. The County would also be prohibited from moving it to other grounds or property owned by or managed by the County.

I hope nobody is outraged or offended by my quoting the complaint. All of us in Talbot County will be better off when the troubled history embodied by the Talbot Boys statue is addressed. We should remember the past so we do not repeat it, but we also must evolve to a more enlightened perspective and redouble our efforts to eradicate racism.

And where do I think the statue should go?  Let me suggest a museum of reconciliation—a learning center where Marylanders can learn about our painful past and what later generations did to right past wrongs. 

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and occasionally goldendoodles.

 

Honesty Shunned by Howard Freedlander

by 20 Comments

The Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are making a shameful mockery of the unassailable virtue of honesty. It has become a foreign concept. 

Rep. Liz Cheney, a true-red Republican, has had the audacity to call a lie a lie. For uttering the truth about the 2020 presidential election, labeling Donald Trump’s claims of a fraudulent election a bold-faced lie and having voted for his impeachment, Cheney faces expulsion from the House Republican leadership. She is to be replaced tomorrow by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. 

Why?

Because the majority of Republicans in Congress subscribe to Trump’s false assertions, disputed in the courts and state elections supervisors, Cheney is being shunted aside for rejecting a dishonest party orthodoxy and supporting the election process. Her spineless colleagues continue to court Trump’s favor and by extension support by his base.

If the projected expulsion were not a real possibility, it would seem ridiculous and rancid. Unfortunately, the democracy we all love and treasure is threatened by the constant drumbeat by irresponsible Republicans of fraud in the 2020 election—despite its utter lack of proof.

The folks seeking to oust Liz Cheney care little about the damage they are inflicting on our country. It matters little to these people that some Americans may believe them and question the bedrock of our once exceptional country: our vote and belief it counts.

The congressional sheep, including Rep. Andy Harris, peddle this nonsense to supporters to win elections. Harris and his ilk feed the acknowledged discontent with, and distrust of government to Americans who might follow leaders with vision and integrity.

The theory among Trump and followers is a cynical one: if you tell the same lie over and over, it may seem the truth to the uninformed.

Through the despicable behavior of her misguided colleagues on the right, Cheney seems heroic, a symbol of honesty, even it means a temporary exile and unconscionable shunning.

When sloughing through a swamp with crocodiles hungry for power and money, it is difficult to survive if your intention is to speak the truth and defend the basic tenets of democracy. Why are the other swamp residents so driven by political avarice and praise doled out by the unelected swamp rat?

Cheney is a principled conservative. Her views run counter to mine. Yet, she accepts the undeniable truth: the 2020 election result was unimpeachable, that calling it otherwise is a lie, and that Trump incited a riot against democracy on Jan. 6.

Punished and sent to the corner to do penance, Cheney will not keep quiet. She has a responsible, credible voice. Her expulsion would be foolhardy for a party whose distaste for dissenting views makes it increasingly irrelevant and morally corrupt.

By casting its lot with a person loyal only to himself and devoted to wreaking revenge on party members opposed to his vacuous leadership, the Republican Party is damaging itself and the nation.

As the New York Times columnist, Thomas K. Friedman, wrote last week, “To be a leader in today’s G.O.P., you either have to play dumb or be dumb on the central issue facing our Republic: the integrity of our election. You have to accept everything that Trump has said about the election—without shred of evidence—and ignore everything his own attorney general, F.B.I. director and election director said—based on the evidence—that there was no substantive fraud.

“…There is simply nothing more dangerous for a two-party democracy than to have one party declare that no election where it loses is legitimate, and, therefore, if it loses it will just lie about the results and change the rules (as in pernicious efforts in state legislatures to suppress the vote to ensure future victories.”

I vote for honesty. I vote for principled leadership on either side of the political divide. 

I vote against attempts to dismantle our democracy. I vote against fraudulent behavior instigated by an ex-president with no concern about the inviolate foundation of our fractious country.

In an op-ed in the Washington Post, Liz Cheney wrote, “I am a conservative Republican, and the most conservative of conservative values is reverence for the rule of law. Each of us swears an oath before God to uphold our Constitution.”

Simply said, easily understandable, these comments are ageless and incontrovertible. Even for those who might disagree with the congresswoman’s political views.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.